Present rules of engagement demand that precision guided weapons and weapon systems are necessary. According to well-documented reports, precision guided weapons have made up about 53 percent of all strike weapons employed by the United States from 1995 to 2003. The trend toward the use of precision weapons will continue. Additionally, strike weapons are used throughout a campaign, and in larger numbers than any other class of weapons. This trend will be even more pronounced as unmanned airborne vehicles (“UAVs”) take on attack roles.
Each weapon carried on a launch platform (e.g., aircraft, ship, artillery) must be tested for safety, compatibility, and effectiveness. In some cases, these qualification tests can cost more to perform than the costs of the development of the weapon system. As a result, designers often choose to be constrained by earlier qualifications. In the case of smart weapons, this qualification includes data compatibility efforts. Examples of this philosophy can be found in the air to ground munitions (“AGM”)-154 joint standoff weapon (“JSOW”), which was integrated with a number of launch platforms. In the process, a set of interfaces were developed, and a number of other systems have since been integrated which used the data sets and precedents developed by the AGM-154. Such qualifications can be very complex.
An additional example is the bomb live unit (“BLU”)-116, which is essentially identical to the BLU-109 warhead in terms of weight, center of gravity and external dimensions. However, the BLU-116 has an external “shroud” of light metal (presumably aluminum alloy or something similar) and a core of hard, heavy metal. Thus, the BLU-109 was employed to reduce qualification costs of the BLU-116.
Another means used to minimize the time and expense of weapons integration is to minimize the changes to launch platform software. As weapons have become more complex, this has proven to be difficult. As a result, the delay in operational deployment of new weapons has been measured in years, often due solely to the problem of aircraft software integration.
Some weapons such as the Paveway II laser guided bomb [also known as the guided bomb unit (“GBU”)-12] have no data or power interface to the launch platform. Clearly, it is highly desirable to minimize this form of interface and to, therefore, minimize the cost and time needed to achieve military utility.
Another general issue to consider is that low cost weapons are best designed with modularity in mind. This generally means that changes can be made to an element of the total weapon system, while retaining many existing features, again with cost and time in mind.
Another consideration is the matter of avoiding unintended damage, such as damage to non-combatants. Such damage can take many forms, including direct damage from an exploding weapon, or indirect damage. Indirect damage can be caused by a “dud” weapon going off hours or weeks after an attack, or if an enemy uses the weapon as an improvised explosive device. The damage may be inflicted on civilians or on friendly forces.
One term of reference is “danger close,” which is the term included in the method of engagement segment of a call for fire that indicates that friendly forces or non-combatants are within close proximity of the target. The close proximity distance is determined by the weapon and munition fired. In recent United States engagements, insurgent forces fighting from urban positions have been difficult to attack due to such considerations.
To avoid such damage, a number of data elements may be provided to the weapon before launch, examples of such data include information about coding on a laser designator, so the weapon will home in on the right signal. Another example is global positioning system (“GPS”) information about where the weapon should go, or areas that must be avoided. Other examples could be cited, and are familiar to those skilled in the art.
Therefore, what is needed is a small smart weapon that can be accurately guided to an intended target with the effect of destroying that target with little or no collateral damage of other nearby locations. Also, what is needed is such a weapon having many of the characteristics of prior weapons already qualified in order to substantially reduce the cost and time for effective deployment. Also, what is needed is a weapon that does not require the use of mechanical connectors or lanyards for proper operation.